In re: GYROOR US, URBANMAX, GAODESHANGUS, GYROOR, FENGCHI-US, JIANGYOU-US,… v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 1989

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: GYROOR US, URBANMAX,
GAODESHANGUS, GYROOR, FENGCHI-US,
JIANGYOU-US, GYROSHOES, HGSM, YANJIN-US,
Petitioners
______________________
2022-155
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in No.
1:20-cv-04806, Judge Thomas M. Durkin.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before H UGHES , MAYER, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
GYROOR US et al. (collectively, “Gyroor”), defendants
in the underlying patent infringement action, moved the
district court to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455. After the
district court denied that motion and a subsequent request
for reconsideration, Gyroor filed this petition for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court
judge to disqualify.
Case: 22-155 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 08/09/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: GYROOR US 2
A party seeking mandamus must demonstrate no “ad-
equate alternative” means to obtain the desired relief, Mal-
lard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296,
309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is
“clear and indisputable,” Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S.
655, 666 (1978) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). The court must also be satisfied that the issuance
of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004). Gyroor
has failed to make such a showing in its petition.
Gyroor relies on § 455, which states that “[a]ny justice,
judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall dis-
qualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned,” and when there is “a per-
sonal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding.” Gyroor’s primary arguments for recusal
amount to nothing more than disagreements with the
court’s (a) preliminary injunction rulings*, (b) determina-
tion to initially allow an affidavit in support of a motion for
attorney fees to be submitted in camera, and (c) order di-
recting plaintiffs to file and serve a new preliminary in-
junction motion. But Supreme Court precedent explains
that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid
basis” for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 555 (1994). Gyroor otherwise points to remarks made
by the district court judge in a proceeding that “injunctions
are often entered in this district . . . where there’s an asset
freeze on all of the defendants” and that “it is no secret”
that there are “[c]ounterfeiters and people who infringe in-
tellectual property market products on places like eBay or
* The defendants have pending appeals from those in-
junctions in Appeal Nos. 2021-2150 and 2021-2277.
Case: 22-155 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 08/09/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: GYROOR US 3
Amazon.” Pet. at. 19–20. But those remarks do not estab-
lish bias under § 455. They do not reveal an “opinion that
derives from an extrajudicial source”; nor do they clearly
establish “a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to
make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
August 9, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-155 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 08/09/2022

-- 3 of 3 --